Looking beyond 2010… WRTC Meeting May 11, 2006

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
creating a sustainable world The Chesapeake Bay TMDL A Policy Model for Nutrient Pollution Reductions James Noonan October.
Advertisements

Howard County, MD Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan October 6, 2011 Howard Saltzman Howard County Department of Public Works.
Management Plan: An Overview
The Effect of the Changing Dynamics of the Conowingo Dam on the Chesapeake Bay Mukhtar Ibrahim and Karl Berger, COG staff Water Resources Technical Committee.
Robinson Creek and Tooley Creek Watershed Management Plan Presented By: Jason Cole, M.Sc., P.Geo Rob Frizzell, M.Sc., P.Geo Municipality of Clarington.
Current Planning for 2017 Mid-Point Assessment Gary Shenk COG 10/4/2012 presentation credit to Katherine Antos and the WQGIT ad hoc planning team.
Imperviousness and Population Increases in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Presented by Michael S. Rolband P.E., P.W.S., P.W.D., LEED ® AP Wetland Studies.
Bay Barometer: A Health and Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2009 Factors Impacting Health Factors Impacting Bay.
Maintaining healthy watersheds in the Chesapeake LGAC meeting December 4, 2014 Mark Bryer The Nature Conservancy Chair, Healthy Watershed Goal Team.
Update on the District of Columbia’s Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) for the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) November 18, 2010.
Point Source POLLUTION: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES
Update on Chesapeake Bay Issues Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 17, 2009 Ted Graham & Steve Bieber COG Department.
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Katherine Antos Chesapeake Bay Program Office Jenny Molloy Water Protection Division DC Draft Phase II WIP.
IMPACTS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT ON OREGON’S WATERS 2001 This slide show was borrowed from the internet but we added our own research when we presented it.
Impacts of Land Development on Oregon’s Waters 2001.
Karl Berger Dept. of Environmental Programs Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Developments April 28, 2015.
Notice: The views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Environmental.
Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee Meeting Bay Program Water Quality Goals: Focus on Funding Presented to COG Board of Directors September 10, 2003.
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Jim Edward EPA Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office DDOE Meeting with Federal Partners February.
Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 30, 2010.
Nitrate analysis in the Seine Basin, France Arielle Mimouni GIS in Water Resources
Status Report on Chesapeake Bay Clean Up Plan Wastewater Sector June 2, 2010.
Chesapeake Bay Policy in Virginia - TMDL, Milestones and the Watershed Agreement Russ Baxter Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay Program February 16, 2006 How the Bay Program Affects the COG Region Briefing for Loudoun County Supervisor Sally Kurtz Credit for several.
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. September 16, 2015 How can we make sure the Chesapeake Bay Restoration really works?
2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for low gradient streams) for species richness, composition and pollution tolerance, as well as a composite benthic macroinvertebrate.
Answering the Question: Why? Factors Affecting Change in Water Quality Exceptional challenge to explain “why” Poor quality of pollution source information.
Water Resources Technical Committee Chesapeake Bay Program Overview & Updates July 10, 2008 Tanya T. Spano.
Draft Stormwater Proposal Home Builders Association of Virginia Richmond, Virginia June 29, 2009.
Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Meeting March 17, 2011 Virginia Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Approach.
Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Workgroup March 17, 2011.
Harwich, Massachusetts Overview of Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP) East Harwich Planning Workshop June 4, 2014 East Harwich Planning Workshop.
GIS M ETHODOLOGY Swearing Creek Watershed Restoration Plan 8/26/2015 Piedmont Triad Regional Council.
New York’s Chesapeake Bay WIP
Update for the Citizens Advisory Committee February 22, 2017
Chesapeake bay program: Funding & Bay TMDL Midpoint Assessment
Mulberry River Watershed
Impact of Nonpoint Sources on Water Quality
Update on Chesapeake Bay Program Developments
It’s The Final Countdown To The Mid-point Assessment:
Chesapeake bay program
Moving to Phase II: Watershed Implementation Plans
MACo Winter Conference
Florida and Reclaimed Water
Paper by: Bloniarz D. , M. Matteo, T
WIP Regional Meetings Jason Keppler
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
Funding from the Local Perspective
Watershed Implementation Plan
Funding from the Local Perspective
Understanding the State’s Accounting for Growth Policy
Current VA Ag Initiatives
River Flow into Chesapeake Bay
We often celebrate trees…
Funding from the Local Perspective
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
LGAC Input on Outcomes.
Maryland’s Phase III WIP Planning for 2025 and beyond
Approach to Setting Local Planning Goals
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Milestones, Progress, Mid-point Assessment
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
Overview of Climate Impact Assessment Framework and Implementation
Jim Edward Acting Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office May 23,2018 EPA’s Draft Final Phase III WIP Expectations.
James Davis-Martin Chesapeake Bay Program Manager
Chesapeake Bay Program Climate Change Modeling 2.0
Next steps for scenarios 9 February 2017
Maryland’s Draft Phase III WIP for the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Restoration, Chesapeake Bay
Presentation transcript:

Looking beyond 2010… WRTC Meeting May 11, 2006 Offsetting Nutrient Loads in the Face of Urban Growth WRTC Meeting May 11, 2006 Condensed from Bay Program Reevaluation Workshop Presentation September 21, 2005 Thank you We’ll take a look beyond 2010 & discuss the implications of continued urban growth Included in our concern is maintaining progress, prevention of backsliding and considering provisions for offsetting new loads Ted Graham, Chair Land, Growth, and Stewardship Subcommittee

Major Points 1. Urban development is the fastest growing source of nutrients to the Bay. 2. Urban development, including wastewater, contributes more nutrients to the Bay than agriculture. 3. The C2K goal to achieve and maintain water quality can only be met if new urban loads are offset. 4. Projections of urban development and loads beyond 2010 are needed to estimate the scale of required offsets. There are five major points to frame today’s discussion #1 - Urban development is the fastest growing source of nutrients to the Bay #2 – If wastewater is factored in, urban development contributes more nutrient loads than agriculture #3 - Maintaining progress and preventing backsliding will require a system to offset the load from new development #4 - Further analysis will require land use and load projections beyond 2010 #5 - Analysis is needed to determine the nature of an effective offset program 5. Analysis is needed to determine what constitutes an effective offset program. 6. COG member/WRTC input is warranted here, both for wastewater & urban stormwater sectors

Forecasting Future Land Use Between 1990 and 2000: population increased 8% impervious surfaces increased 41% Because: Smaller family size Bigger houses Larger commercial and retail parking lots First, the 2010 land use projection uses a linear extrapolation of population increase with impervious cover increase (1 person/1 unit of land). We now know this is not true. Between 1990 and 2000, analysis has shown that while population increased 8%, impervious cover increased by 41%. “If recent trends continue, the area of developed land in the (Bay) watershed will increase by more than 60% by 2030” ~ “Chesapeake Futures: Choices for the 21st Century”, STAC 2003.

Nitrogen Loads to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Total Loads – Overall Program Focus Excluding Overall Growth) Total loads to the Chesapeake Bay in million pounds per year answer questions concerning overall program focus. When “urban/suburban” total loads consider only the stormwater runoff from the land area, the question of “urban/suburban” loads versus agricultural loads treats population as a given and speaks to land conversion. In this case for nitrogen, total agricultural loads exceed urban/suburban runoff – looking at the scale of the Chesapeake Bay watershed as a whole. The way we show this graph misrepresents the composite nature of the impact of the urban sector By not looking at the composite urban picture, many people suggest that the next slide is actually good for water quality …

Bring on development to reduce agricultural runoff

Urban Development May Impact Restoration Progress: Flow-Adjusted Trend in Total Nitrogen DRAFT USGS has recently published some troubling data Some monitoring evidence showing that in at least one developing areas, there has been an uptick in loads for both nitrogen and phosphorus We appear to be backsliding there.

Nitrogen Loads to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Total Loads – Overall Program Focus Excluding Overall Growth) Total loads to the Chesapeake Bay in million pounds per year answer questions concerning overall program focus. When “urban/suburban” total loads consider only the stormwater runoff from the land area, the question of “urban/suburban” loads versus agricultural loads treats population as a given and speaks to land conversion. In this case for nitrogen, total agricultural loads exceed urban/suburban runoff – looking at the scale of the Chesapeake Bay watershed as a whole. Therefore, rather than just focusing on the sectors that are dominant in 2010, we may want to look at the sectors that are impacted by population growth more comprehensively All of a sudden, that puts impacts due to development …

Recommendations 1. LGSS be tasked with preparing 2030 development projections. 2. LGSS be tasked with revising the growth allocation models to drive the Phase V Watershed Model. 3. LGSS and NSC be tasked with estimating 2030 nutrient projections by major watershed. 4. LGSS and NSC, in consultation with LGAC, be tasked with defining the framework of an urban development offset program. TIMING: July 17, 2006 – 2030 Land Use Projection Worksession October 2006 – September 2007 - Alternative Growth Scenarios (Urban, Wastewater, Agriculture, Forest) January 2007 – WS Model Runs of 3-5 alternative scenarios Foundation for offsets analysis Finally, our recommendations for the next steps and a rough timetable Diana, it’s your turn to take it from here